I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

[dsignori]

Let me get this straight...so when a site says something bad about the Droid DNA it shouldn't be trusted and it's a horrible site, but when you find a a site that gives a good review it's a awesome site and can be trusted? Come on ppl get real. The Verge is a respected website don't try to go around discrediting their information; because when they are posting good news on products you don't say crap until it's negative.

I agree, though just 1 person was doing that.

That said though, the Verge's review seems to be the anomaly now in regard to early reviews. The rest of the ones out so far (there are 5 or 6) say the battery life is decent or better. And not one mention any lag like the Verge did. I'll continue to take them all in and see, though I still plan on getting the phone.

 

[Darth Duane]

The guy that did the Verge review constantly compared it to "His Iphone". Not "The Iphone" but HIS. I'll take his fan boy review with a grain of salt. EVERY other review says battery life is on par or better than the GS3, even the review Gizmodo just put up.

HTC Droid DNA Review: Verizon's Big, Beautiful Beast

There is one negative review by a guy who constantly compares it to "His Iphone" every other review is positive on all accounts.

I think some people are trying way to hard to dislike this phone.

 

[michael4man]

I myself actually like the Verge, but I think the main complaint here is the fact that they do not always review devices in the same manor, why have a battery stress test that they use on some phones and not others, maybe there is a reason they did it that way such as the Nexus 4 not having LTE, we don't really know and I think that is what people are upset about. Why say the S3 has decent battery life and give it a decent battery score but when the DNA last longer on the same test say it has awful battery life and a low battery score. All reviews are different and I like to read multiple reviews to get a well rounded idea of a phone. While I don't agree with this part of their review it won't keep me from coming back to their site, it will just keep me mindful of their battery tests.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

 

[qwertpiratej]

I typically like The Verge, too, but this review seems to go against the consensus of other (more rigorous) reviews. I followed Joshua Topolsky from Engadget, but frankly I don't read enough to know a lot about Dan Seifert. I don't think they're necessarily anti-android or HTC or anything like that, but the writer may have extrapolated poor overall battery life from that test without looking at the performance of other comparable phones. There is clearly some discrepancy and I just doubt that every other review is biased and The Verge are the only ones being honest.

 

[Phoneguy108]

That is very odd, you are right.

 

[thefireguy286]

Let me get this straight...so when a site says something bad about the Droid DNA it shouldn't be trusted and it's a horrible site, but when you find a a site that gives a good review it's a awesome site and can be trusted? Come on ppl get real. The Verge is a respected website don't try to go around discrediting their information; because when they are posting good news on products you don't say crap until it's negative.

Every set of statistics has an outlier. Considering it's the first of it's kind allows us to draw that conclusion. The fact that it IS the Verge makes it interesting. However I would have preferred if someone else over there reviewed it.

 

[dsignori]

The guy that did the Verge review constantly compared it to "His Iphone". Not "The Iphone" but HIS. I'll take his fan boy review with a grain of salt. EVERY other review says battery life is on par or better than the GS3, even the review Gizmodo just put up.

HTC Droid DNA Review: Verizon's Big, Beautiful Beast

There is one negative review by a guy who constantly compares it to "His Iphone" every other review is positive on all accounts.

I think some people are trying way to hard to dislike this phone.

Wow, even Gizmodo likes it. Maybe that's a bad sign . That is surprising though. They praise the battery life

 

[Phoneguy108]

I would like to see the same battery test on the device 6 months from now after many charge/discharge cycles. I am sorry but I lost a lot of confidence in HTC batteries over the past two years.

 

[thefireguy286]

Engadget is out with their review, but they are awfully vague.

 

[unklsckness]

Engadget is out with their review, but they are awfully vague.

Yeah however they did say it will get through a workshift and give the phone props. Never touched on actually use for a user with lack of space on the memory HTC Droid DNA review -- Engadget. This is where I am hoping Phil covers in his review.

 

[Who?]

Trying to attach the pic

Um, so you had the phone screen on for almost two hours and your battery life dropped from 40% to 18%. That's nothing to be happy about

 

[milan03]

What's wrong with that? So the battery dipped 20% in 2 hours. That's 10hrs of screen time? I'd be VERY happy about that!

 

[mclarryjr]

Um, so you had the phone screen on for almost two hours and your battery life dropped from 40% to 18%. That's nothing to be happy about

So that would be like 2 hours of screen on would take 25% of your battery then 8 hours of screen on would drain your battery if fully charged right? I would argue that wasn't bad at all and pretty good.

 

[DarkScythe]

Am I the only one that thinks everyone's going too far with the instantaneous gut reactions?
It feels like everyone is going way overboard with jumping to conclusions.

Here's what I've noticed so far:
People say that the battery life on the DNA is comparable to the SGS3. (On paper, this is reasonable; 2020mAh vs 2100 mAh, all else being equal, which it isn't.)
"Battery life" numbers are all over the place, with people constantly asking for "Screen on time" whenever anyone posts that the DNA has lasted over a day of "regular" use.
The phone appears to idle extremely well, and does not consume too much power, as evidenced by screenshots showing the power line as a very light plateau downward during "sleep" times.
By the time the phone runs out, the common number that emerges appears to be around 4 hours of "Screen on time."

Support:
CNet's Review: HTC Droid DNA Review - Watch CNET's Video Review - page 2
DNA: 8h 43m
SGS3: 9h 24m
Fairly similar battery life results. There is probably a margin of error as with all tests, but 40 minutes is not too big a difference (roughly 7.2%.)

The Verge:
DNA: 4h 25m HTC Droid DNA review | The Verge
SGS3: 4h 12m Samsung Galaxy S III for Verizon: impressions and benchmarks | The Verge
Most people appear to be bashing this because it sounds ludicrously low.
However, pay attention to the points I outlined above - TheVerge appears to have reached this figure by running their benchmark on these phones. I would assume that the benchmark is the same for both phones. By the looks of the benchmark description, the screen should be on for the entire duration of this benchmark.

AndroidPolice: DROID DNA Battery Life Impressions: It's Not Nearly As Bad As You Think (With Stats, Methodology)
DNA: 27h 30m (4h 8m "Screen on time") [Comments section - And FYI, the phone died at 11:03AM with 4h8m screen on time 27h30m total powered on time.]

User NightAngel79: http://forums.androidcentral.com/ve...-have-questions-fire-away-16.html#post2336190
DNA: ~4h [From post: I got 13 hour battery life with LTE on the entire time and 4+ hours screen on time.]

The big issue is that these numbers should not be compared across different sites! It is the trend that counts.
However, within the same review site, the numbers should be comparable, as they should be utilizing the same tests in as controlled a manner as possible.
The trend that I see is that the battery can and will last for over a day of moderate use, and if left idling, it will go on for even longer.
However, it appears using the phone drains its battery! (Sarcasm, in case it's broken for anyone.)

From these sources, it appears that under heavy use, the phone lasts about 4 hours worth of "Screen on time" regardless of whether it's all at once, or spread out over the course of a couple days.

People have thus far appear to be jumping down each others' throats for posting information that disagrees with their opinions.
Can we not just deal with the facts? And by facts, it means things that have been tested, and we have sources and numbers for. Not "facts" that we make up to support our arguments.

This phone is not for everyone. If super long battery life all at once matters, get the Razr HD MAXX. There's nothing else out that can beat the physics of a larger battery. If you absolutely must have the screen on and in heavy use for 20 of the 24 hours of each day without access to a charger, you have no real choice. HTC's "reason" for the 2020mAh battery can be debated for all eternity, but that isn't going to magically change the battery this phone ships with. It's also pointless because no one can call up HTC and ask them specifically why they did this, and get a straight answer. Everything is only our opinion on the matter. You learn pretty quickly in most hobbies that everything is a compromise, and the compromise happens to fit the usage model of the majority of the consumers/userbase.

If this conflicts with our vision, or usage models, then clearly, we were not the majority.

Finally, I would like to say that efficiency can make a difference, and it's not purely down to the mAh rating. It won't be super dramatic, but it does work.
For example, back during the early 2000's, when Intel was debuting its Pentium4 CPU, they were huge on higher clockspeed, and more GHz. AMD responded with the Athlon XP CPU's, which were clocked much lower, but because of efficiencies, wound up outperforming the P4's for a long time. This is an extreme example, but I wanted to point out that one specific numerical metric is not the only way to characterize the performance of a particular item.

 

[AegonTheDragon]

So is the multi tasking like the S3? Or do apps refresh like in the One X?

Also is there the setting to hold the recent app button for menu instead of having the three dot menu?

 

[eljoker]

Phil, remember me? I was the guy that leaked the Bionic details, you know all the accessories? So how bad is the keyboard? Can you replace it with a stock ICS keyboard? Or possibly the JB keyboard with out root? ( I know devs will have it once its rooted.)

 

[dsignori]

Am I the only one that thinks everyone's going too far with the instantaneous gut reactions?
It feels like everyone is going way overboard with jumping to conclusions.

Here's what I've noticed so far:
People say that the battery life on the DNA is comparable to the SGS3. (On paper, this is reasonable; 2020mAh vs 2100 mAh, all else being equal, which it isn't.)
"Battery life" numbers are all over the place, with people constantly asking for "Screen on time" whenever anyone posts that the DNA has lasted over a day of "regular" use.
The phone appears to idle extremely well, and does not consume too much power, as evidenced by screenshots showing the power line as a very light plateau downward during "sleep" times.
By the time the phone runs out, the common number that emerges appears to be around 4 hours of "Screen on time."

Support:
CNet's Review: HTC Droid DNA Review - Watch CNET's Video Review - page 2
DNA: 8h 43m
SGS3: 9h 24m
Fairly similar battery life results. There is probably a margin of error as with all tests, but 40 minutes is not too big a difference (roughly 7.2%.)

The Verge:
DNA: 4h 25m HTC Droid DNA review | The Verge
SGS3: 4h 12m Samsung Galaxy S3 for Verizon: impressions and benchmarks | The Verge
Most people appear to be bashing this because it sounds ludicrously low.
However, pay attention to the points I outlined above - TheVerge appears to have reached this figure by running their benchmark on these phones. I would assume that the benchmark is the same for both phones. By the looks of the benchmark description, the screen should be on for the entire duration of this benchmark.

AndroidPolice: DROID DNA Battery Life Impressions: It's Not Nearly As Bad As You Think (With Stats, Methodology)
DNA: 27h 30m (4h 8m "Screen on time") [Comments section - And FYI, the phone died at 11:03AM with 4h8m screen on time 27h30m total powered on time.]

User NightAngel79: http://forums.androidcentral.com/ve...-have-questions-fire-away-16.html#post2336190
DNA: ~4h [From post: I got 13 hour battery life with LTE on the entire time and 4+ hours screen on time.]

The big issue is that these numbers should not be compared across different sites! It is the trend that counts.
However, within the same review site, the numbers should be comparable, as they should be utilizing the same tests in as controlled a manner as possible.
The trend that I see is that the battery can and will last for over a day of moderate use, and if left idling, it will go on for even longer.
However, it appears using the phone drains its battery! (Sarcasm, in case it's broken for anyone.)

From these sources, it appears that under heavy use, the phone lasts about 4 hours worth of "Screen on time" regardless of whether it's all at once, or spread out over the course of a couple days.

People have thus far appear to be jumping down each others' throats for posting information that disagrees with their opinions.
Can we not just deal with the facts? And by facts, it means things that have been tested, and we have sources and numbers for. Not "facts" that we make up to support our arguments.

This phone is not for everyone. If super long battery life all at once matters, get the Razr HD MAXX. There's nothing else out that can beat the physics of a larger battery. If you absolutely must have the screen on and in heavy use for 20 of the 24 hours of each day without access to a charger, you have no real choice. HTC's "reason" for the 2020mAh battery can be debated for all eternity, but that isn't going to magically change the battery this phone ships with. It's also pointless because no one can call up HTC and ask them specifically why they did this, and get a straight answer. Everything is only our opinion on the matter. You learn pretty quickly in most hobbies that everything is a compromise, and the compromise happens to fit the usage model of the majority of the consumers/userbase.

If this conflicts with our vision, or usage models, then clearly, we were not the majority.

Finally, I would like to say that efficiency can make a difference, and it's not purely down to the mAh rating. It won't be super dramatic, but it does work.
For example, back during the early 2000's, when Intel was debuting its Pentium4 CPU, they were huge on higher clockspeed, and more GHz. AMD responded with the Athlon XP CPU's, which were clocked much lower, but because of efficiencies, wound up outperforming the P4's for a long time. This is an extreme example, but I wanted to point out that one specific numerical metric is not the only way to characterize the performance of a particular item.

Well stated. Though far too logical and well thought out to be accepted . Seriously though, you have articulated well how folks should treat these things. The over / under is 10 on how many here will actually though !

 

[phoenixone]

Great...we all agree that we shouldn't squabble over what one site says over the other. Now, back to business. Let's hear some more findings about DNA's performance.

 

[hannsoft]

Android Police just posted a great article on DNA battery life:

DROID DNA Battery Life Impressions: It's Not Nearly As Bad As You Think (With Stats, Methodology)

That is a brilliant review. Thanks so much for sharing it! Damn, does it ever make ME feel better about this phone!

 

[schwooba]

Not that it matters too much, but how quickly does the phone charge?